[Winstonm]

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 08:40 AM, said:

can the same be said for other abstracts, or did you just arbitrarily choose love?

I chose love because you named it as a trascendental entity.

Here is the definition I am using for abstract:
1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
2. Not applied or practical; theoretical.

Seems to me once an abstract is proven it would become concrete - chicken or the egg type discussion.

Here is one for you to ponder: if your concept is a perfected abstract love, how is it explained that this perfect abstract love would then chose one race as a chosen people while the rest of the world's population became outcasts?

Einstein didn't believe it.

Although no Einstein, I can easily see how the chosen peoples concept makes more sense as legend or mythology than a real act based from perfect abstract love.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 24 2008, 09:06 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 08:40 AM, said:

can the same be said for other abstracts, or did you just arbitrarily choose love?

I chose love because you named it as a trascendental entity.

you said that if love is abstract it is useless... i asked if the same is true for all abstracts... is the above quote a yes or is it a no?

Quote

Here is the definition I am using for abstract:
1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
2. Not applied or practical; theoretical.

Seems to me once an abstract is proven it would become concrete - chicken or the egg type discussion.

so you feel that abstract entities, for example things such as the laws of logic or justice or morality or ethics, are theoretical? that they don't exist in reality?

Quote

Here is one for you to ponder: if your concept is a perfected abstract love, how is it explained that this perfect abstract love would then chose one race as a chosen people while the rest of the world's population became outcasts?

first of all, this is just another strawman... i simply said that love is either abstract or material (concrete)... you said it isn't abstract, thus it must be suspended in time and space (material)... now if in your opinion it is neither abstract nor material, you can offer a third (or fourth, or nth) state to discuss and defend... aside from that, there seems to me to be a difference between the statements "love is an abstract" and "if love is abstract God would not have chosen one particular people as his own"

Quote

Einstein didn't believe it. 

Although no Einstein, I can easily see how the chosen peoples concept makes more sense as legend or mythology than a real act based from perfect abstract love.

as a mathmatical theorist einstein is hard to beat... as a philosopher it's possible the same can't be said... in any case, we aren't (or at least i wasn't) speaking of what makes sense viz the jews and God, we're speaking of the existence or non-existence of abstract entities

do you think this is true? if not, why not?

Quote

it's obvious that failing to acknowledge that love is an abstract is near impossible for you because removing that bias destroys your worldview... your psychological defense mechanisms are simply kicking in to protect you from challenging your own worldview - it has closed your mind

[zasanya]

Is God abstract or is He suspended in time and space?

[luke warm]

zasanya, on May 24 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

Is God abstract or is He suspended in time and space?

let me start by giving alvin plantinga's propositions used in his ontological defense as a way of reaching an agreement on the definition of God:

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world

so God is a maximal being with maximal excellence (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent)... as such, he is abstract as opposed to material, yet with the ability to manifest himself physically (else he wouldn't have the attributes that make him God), and this is true in every possible world

i hope that is what you are asking

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 10:20 AM, said:

zasanya, on May 24 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

Is God abstract or is He suspended in time and space?

let me start by giving alvin plantinga's propositions used in his ontological defense as a way of reaching an agreement on the definition of God:

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world

so God is a maximal being with maximal excellence (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent)... as such, he is abstract as opposed to material, yet with the ability to manifest himself physically (else he wouldn't have the attributes that make him God), and this is true in every possible world

i hope that is what you are asking

I gather from your use here of maximal excellence rather than maximal greatness that your idea of the christian god is restricted to this world, and does not extend to all possible worlds. Do I have that right?

Oops, sorry, I see I have that wrong.

This post has been edited by PassedOut: 2008-May-24, 10:16

[jdonn]

matmat, on May 24 2008, 12:50 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 12:20 AM, said:

i've really tried to keep this polite, but the truth is you have offered no rational basis for what you are saying...

heh. and you have? if you're not happy that others do not share your irrational world view, that's your problem.

He has at least reminded me of why I avoid discussing religion with people in person. Jimmy, I am reminded of the thread a few months ago when I spent probably 20 fruitless posts trying to get you to admit your beliefs are logical. I have shown you that the evidence you present of your beliefs can be used exactly the same to demonstrate ridiculous assertions as well, and your reponse was essentially "well those are obviously ridiculous, mine isn't." And then you say the other side has offered no rational basis for what it is saying? You can enjoy dragging Winston off onto your tangeants and then be convinced of nothing if you want, it's your life.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on May 24 2008, 11:14 AM, said:

I gather from your use here of maximal excellence rather than maximal greatness that your idea of the christian god is restricted to this world, and does not extend to all possible worlds. Do I have that right?

Oops, sorry, I see I have that wrong.

no.. but let me reiterate, i am not saying that the above is original to me... anyway, when i said "so God is a maximal being with maximal excellence..." i wrote "is a maximal being" rather "a being with maximal greatness" in error... the term maximal greatness incorporates the term maximal excellence... so a being with maximal greatness could only be so in every possible world

again, i apologize if my typo caused confusion

[luke warm]

jdonn, on May 24 2008, 11:17 AM, said:

matmat, on May 24 2008, 12:50 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 12:20 AM, said:

i've really tried to keep this polite, but the truth is you have offered no rational basis for what you are saying...

heh. and you have? if you're not happy that others do not share your irrational world view, that's your problem.

He has at least reminded me of why I avoid discussing religion with people in person. Jimmy, I am reminded of the thread a few months ago when I spent probably 20 fruitless posts trying to get you to admit your beliefs are logical. I have shown you that the evidence you present of your beliefs can be used exactly the same to demonstrate ridiculous assertions as well, and your reponse was essentially "well those are obviously ridiculous, mine isn't." And then you say the other side has offered no rational basis for what it is saying? You can enjoy dragging Winston off onto your tangeants and then be convinced of nothing if you want, it's your life.

josh, the problem is that your questions can only be answered in a way satisfactory to you by starting at the very beginning... i can do so, but only by posting links to articles you might find interesting, articles that explain some of the things i say... for example, when you posit a counter (3 pound elephant, etc) designed to show that such a belief is every bit as appropriate as mine, that raises the whole issue of epistemology ... i've shown helene a few of the reasons for the things i say, but there is much more to it

anyway, if you're interested to know why i might say there is a difference in the 3 pound elephant belief and a belief in God, you have to start with whether or not there is sufficient warrant from a properly functioning mind to hold such a belief

i'm not dodging, it's just that it's near impossible in the space and time we have to put into words the 3 volumes written on this subject by plantinga, even if i arrogantly felt that i could do them justice

the 3 volumes i speak of are by alvin plantina, Warrant: The Current Debate, Warrant and Proper Function, and Warranted Christian Belief

[jdonn]

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 11:36 AM, said:

... for example, when you posit a counter (3 pound elephant, etc) designed to show that such a belief is  every bit as appropriate as mine

Not at all. It was designed to show that your evidence is bad evidence. You have neither proven nor demonstrated nor shown anything at all. Is it at all surprising that when all the same evidence used to justify your belief system can be used to demonstrate things that are beyond absurd, someone might also find your belief system beyond absurd?

There is no "sufficient warrant" for either belief system, except that some people can't accept there are questions to which we don't yet, or perhaps ever, have the answer. I lead a very happy life (not at all saying that you don't), and I believe the reason is that I'm happy to accept that there are things I will never now. I don't use that as justification to force a reason for those things into my brain.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on May 24 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 11:36 AM, said:

... for example, when you posit a counter (3 pound elephant, etc) designed to show that such a belief is  every bit as appropriate as mine

Not at all. It was designed to show that your evidence is bad evidence. You have neither proven nor demonstrated nor shown anything at all. Is it at all surprising that when all the same evidence used to justify your belief system can be used to demonstrate things that are beyond absurd, someone might also find your belief system beyond absurd?

There is no "sufficient warrant" for either belief system, except that some people can't accept there are questions to which we don't yet, or perhaps ever, have the answer. I lead a very happy life (not at all saying that you don't), and I believe the reason is that I'm happy to accept that there are things I will never now. I don't use that as justification to force a reason for those things into my brain.

i offered no evidence... all i've said is that
p or q
not q
p

meaning, in a discussion of worldviews if i can show ~q then it leaves p... for example,

p = the christian worldview can account for laws of logic, or
q = the atheist worldview can account for laws of logic

i'm happy you're happy, and i'm happy i'm happy... and i know without a doubt that there are questions which humans are incapable of answering

[jdonn]

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

i know without a doubt that there are questions which humans are incapable of answering

Haha we can't even agree on that. I have always felt that there is no question humans are incapable of answering, but they will simply be limited by the length of their existance on earth and the extent of their curiosity. There are certainly many examples of questions humans thought they were incapable of answering that have later been answered (uh oh, there comes science again...)

[zasanya]

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 10:20 AM, said:

zasanya, on May 24 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

Is God abstract or is He suspended in time and space?

let me start by giving alvin plantinga's propositions used in his ontological defense as a way of reaching an agreement on the definition of God:

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world

so God is a maximal being with maximal excellence (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent)... as such, he is abstract as opposed to material, yet with the ability to manifest himself physically (else he wouldn't have the attributes that make him God), and this is true in every possible world

i hope that is what you are asking

Does it mean that He is abstract but can make himself suspended in space and time whenever He wishes?

[hrothgar]

This might sound like a cop out, but its a fairly accurate summary regarding my thoughts on this entire subject:

If anyone had been able to derive a legitimate logical proof regarding the existence of "god", the meaning of life, whatever it would have gotten a bit more publicity...

You might have a lot of respect for the works of Plantina or whomever. However, a lot of folks differ rather profoundly with his assumptions, his conclusions, or both. I've looked at some of his writing. I don't find particularly compelling. (Admitted, I don't find this subject area very interesting)

To me, the basic fact that so many folks spend so much time arguing about all this pretty much demolishes any claim that there is any kind of logical proof, so I don't see the need to invest large amounts of time and effort finding the specific flaws with argument XYZ.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on May 24 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

To me, the basic fact that so many folks spend so much time arguing about all this

The existence or non-existence of god, as an academic issue, pretty much went out of fashion during the enlightenment. There was a semi-joke a few years ago about a Bayesian method for computing the probability that god exists that got some media attention, and a well-known biologist wrote a popular book called "the god delusion", and that's pretty much it. IOW while it was considered an important issue among medieval philosophers, today it is confined to popular media.

[han]

jdonn, on May 24 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

i know without a doubt that there are questions which humans are incapable of answering

Haha we can't even agree on that. I have always felt that there is no question humans are incapable of answering, but they will simply be limited by the length of their existance on earth and the extent of their curiosity. There are certainly many examples of questions humans thought they were incapable of answering that have later been answered (uh oh, there comes science again...)

I'm with luke warm on this, I certainly think that there are questions humans will never be able to answer. I agree with Josh that it is hard to tell in advance what those questions are.

I'm not thinking about questions like "why do we exist" and "is there a god". I consider that questions that can't be asked rather than questions that can't be answered.

For example, I don't understand luke warm's definition of god, so I also don't understand what is meant by the existence of such a concept. If you ask me a question that I cannot understand then it will be impossible to answer, but I think that there are questions that I can understand but that will never be answered.

[blackshoe]

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

i offered no evidence... all i've said is that
p or q
not q
p

meaning, in a discussion of worldviews if i can show ~q then it leaves p... for example,

p = the christian worldview can account for laws of logic, or
q = the atheist worldview can account for laws of logic

i'm happy you're happy, and i'm happy i'm happy... and i know without a doubt that there are questions which humans are incapable of answering

Um. I don't think the premise "p or q" in this covers all the bases. If it does not, then both the premise, and thus the conclusion that given ~q, p must be the case are not valid.

[luke warm]

zasanya, on May 24 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 10:20 AM, said:

zasanya, on May 24 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

Is God abstract or is He suspended in time and space?

let me start by giving alvin plantinga's propositions used in his ontological defense as a way of reaching an agreement on the definition of God:

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world

so God is a maximal being with maximal excellence (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent)... as such, he is abstract as opposed to material, yet with the ability to manifest himself physically (else he wouldn't have the attributes that make him God), and this is true in every possible world

i hope that is what you are asking

Does it mean that He is abstract but can make himself suspended in space and time whenever He wishes?

and abstract and material at the same time, as he's already done

blackshoe, on May 24 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

i offered no evidence... all i've said is that
p or q
not q
p

meaning, in a discussion of worldviews if i can show ~q then it leaves p... for example,

p = the christian worldview can account for laws of logic, or
q = the atheist worldview can account for laws of logic

i'm happy you're happy, and i'm happy i'm happy... and i know without a doubt that there are questions which humans are incapable of answering

Um. I don't think the premise "p or q" in this covers all the bases. If it does not, then both the premise, and thus the conclusion that given ~q, p must be the case are not valid.

the argument is valid and any text book would show that it is... change q to "any non-christian worldview" if you want... all that's required for ~q is to show that q is internally inconsistent, that it contains contradictions within its own presuppositions - for example, by saying abstract entities do not exist or by saying something such as "absolutes do not exist, everything is relative"

hrothgar, on May 24 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

This might sound like a cop out, but its a fairly accurate summary regarding my thoughts on this entire subject:

If anyone had been able to derive a legitimate logical proof regarding the existence of "god", the meaning of life, whatever it would have gotten a bit more publicity... 

You might have a lot of respect for the works of Plantina or whomever.  However, a lot of folks differ rather profoundly with his assumptions, his conclusions, or both.  I've looked at some of his writing.  I don't find particularly compelling.  (Admitted, I don't find this subject area very interesting)

To me, the basic fact that so many folks spend so much time arguing about all this pretty much demolishes any claim that there is any kind of logical proof, so I don't see the need to invest large amounts of time and effort finding the specific flaws with argument XYZ.

it depends on what kind of proof you're looking for... one of the things i dislike about plantinga's methodology is that he only shows modally that it is rational to believe in God's existence, or that naturalism is irrational and that the theory of evolution is insufficient as a reason for naturalism... as darwin said,

"...the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which have been developed from the minds of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

[TimG]

helene_t, on May 24 2008, 01:52 PM, said:

hrothgar, on May 24 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

To me, the basic fact that so many folks spend so much time arguing about all this

The existence or non-existence of god, as an academic issue, pretty much went out of fashion during the enlightenment. There was a semi-joke a few years ago about a Bayesian method for computing the probability that god exists that got some media attention, and a well-known biologist wrote a popular book called "the god delusion", and that's pretty much it. IOW while it was considered an important issue among medieval philosophers, today it is confined to popular media.

There have been books written on the subject other than The God Delusion. One prominent example of a book that comes to a different conclusion is The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project. This is not to suggest that this is as serious an academic issue as it used to be, but academics do consider the issue and probably will for many years to come.

[TimG]

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

blackshoe, on May 24 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

i offered no evidence... all i've said is that
p or q
not q
p

meaning, in a discussion of worldviews if i can show ~q then it leaves p... for example,

p = the christian worldview can account for laws of logic, or
q = the atheist worldview can account for laws of logic

i'm happy you're happy, and i'm happy i'm happy... and i know without a doubt that there are questions which humans are incapable of answering

Um. I don't think the premise "p or q" in this covers all the bases. If it does not, then both the premise, and thus the conclusion that given ~q, p must be the case are not valid.

the argument is valid and any text book would show that it is... change q to "any non-christian worldview" if you want... all that's required for ~q is to show that q is internally inconsistent, that it contains contradictions within its own presuppositions - for example, by saying abstract entities do not exist or by saying something such as "absolutes do not exist, everything is relative"

Excuse me if I have missed it, but can you explain to me how a world view accounts for logic?

Even setting aside your claims that the atheist world view cannot account for laws of logic, isn't it possible that this statement is false? Maybe neither a religious nor an atheist world view can account for laws of logic.

[Winstonm]

Maybe I'm off base here, but it would seem the importance of logic would be in its utilization to solve problems - otherwise, what difference does it make.

Problem solving - the logical use of tools - has been shown to be a possession of crows, parrots, and some types of monkeys.

How does a non-atheist worldview account for humanike tool-use, problem-solving ability in animals?